Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Talbot Baines Reed/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010.

Talbot Baines Reed

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Talbot Baines Reed has been described by the acerbic critic and saxophone player Benny Green as a hereditary prig and religious huckster. The first is maybe truer than the second, but whatever Reed was, even Green concedes that he was a first class writer of fiction for boys. His school stories set the standard for generations, and were widely and enthusiastically read in middle class households throughout the Empire. Among Reed's admirers was the schoolboy P.G. Wodehouse; I am most grateful to Mr Timothy Riley for bringing the Wodehouse material to my attention. Thanks, too, to others who gave the article a thorough examination at Peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - no dab links or dead external links; may offer further comments in a day or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I reviewed this during the PR process and any issues I found were addressed. The licensing on all images looks fine to me. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for encouragement and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ealdgyth Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support; this is as good an article as I can imagine on one of the forgotten titans of the late Victorian era. One very minor thing "in 1869, Reed left the school to join the family firm at the Fann Street foundry, beginning the association with the printing trade that would continue for the rest of his life"—if his father was a printer, did he not have this association from childhood? –  iridescent  20:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, indirectly I suppose he did. But... my father was a lawyer, yet I have never felt in any way associated with the legal profession. It's an arguable but, I would suggest, minor point. Thanks for your comment and support, which are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I was a peer reviewer for this, and as the last of several, found very few quibbles with it just a few days ago. All of those issues were addressed, and I find it more than meets the FAC criteria. Well done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – Declaration of interest: as well as helping to PR this article I also dug out some material for Brianboulton's use in it. I have not contributed directly to the article, and so feel at liberty to support its promotion. I can't see any FA criteria that it doesn't meet; and it is well-balanced, well-proportioned, a good read, and neither too long nor too short. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Full credit to you for the Wodehouse material, which definitely enhances the article. Thanks for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I have a short list of text quibbles I will post on the talk page hopefully later today, but see no reason to clutter this page or withhold my support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, I've not been able to spot the text quibbles on the talk page - have they transpired yet? Thanks for the support anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * These talkpage issues now addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support after further consideration with one small nitpick: Quigly or Quigley? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's "Quigly" - thanks fo spotting this and for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: A well-paced, comprehensive read of an author who entertained a substantial number of youths in those days. Disclaimer: I was part of the peer review; the images are unchanged since and are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed.  Jappalang (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Is the page xv1 a mistake? Also there is a stray "Morison. p." and a ",p." and one where "and" is used but there is a comma in another place  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  06:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed the above, except the ",p.", which doesn't appear to exist - can you pinpoint? Thanks for your sharp eye. Brianboulton (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have been seeing things or it has been dealth with or something  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Interesting, nicely written, a pleasure to read. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi Brian, excellent article as always. Two niggles:


 * This source: "Morison, Stanley (1960). Talbot Baines Reed: Author, Bibliographer, Typefounder. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press." I've not been able to find a CUP publication of this. I can see it cited in a few places as privately printed in Cambridge, e.g. here, footnote seven.
 * Yes, you are right, my apologies. The book was privately printed and bound at the University's press. Morison was a renowned typographer; the book's foreword, by the printer, says: "Printing a book for Mr Morison is always a stimulating and exacting experience. His willingness to allow the work to appear in the University Printer's lengthening series of Christmas books adds yet another stone to the edifice of our indebtednes." I have made the necessary changes to the publication details. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also about the point that his workload may have contributed to his death. Do the sources themselves make that point? It jumped out at me because it's in the lead, and I'm wondering how likely it is. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cox says: "By his fortieth birthday in 1892 it was clear that Reed was grossly over-working. In January 1893 he was forced to tell his friends what the family already knew, that his health was breaking down under the strain..." Morison: "The author was badly overworking even by his own exacting standards. In January 1893 Reed informed Copinger that his health was giving him trouble...". So I think my wording is well justified. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and thanks for fixing the ref. Interesting comment from the printer. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

comment job well done Fasach Nua (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In the opening section it says "Reed wrote regular articles and book reviews for his cousin Edward Baines's newspaper, the Leeds Mercury." The Leeds Mercury article mentions Edward Baines (1774–1848), who seems to have been father of Reed's mother, and Edward Baines (1800–1890), brother of Reed's mother. Was there a third one, Reed's cousin, or is this a mistake? Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for raising this. Three sources (Cox, Morison and ODNB) refer to Reed's "cousin Edward Baines", which suggests the existence of a third with that name. Reed's Uncle Edward, born in 1800, would have been in his eighties when Reed was writing for the Mercury - was he still editing the paper then? I don't have access to a Mercury history, but unless there is specific contradictory evidence, I feel I should stick with the existing sources. Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That seems completely reasonable. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this review is closed, the article having been promoted 9 November. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.